Do We Really Need NIPS/NDR, Even for SMEs or Large Enterprises?

⛑️Focusing on small- to mid-sized enterprises (SMEs), we revisit the question of whether NIPS (Network-based Intrusion Prevention System) and NDR (Network Detection & Response)—both network-layer security solutions—are truly indispensable.

🚀 To cut right to the chase: unless you operate in a highly specialized environment or must comply with specific regulations, you often do not need NIPS/NDR. In most cases, WAF + EDR/HIPS can provide a sufficiently robust security posture.

1. Typical Security Environments for SMEs

In many small- to mid-sized enterprises, the following conditions typically apply:

1. No Mandatory Regulatory Compliance

   • Unlike banking/finance or government sectors, there are often no explicit mandates or audit items requiring the adoption of NIPS/NDR.

2. No OT (Operational Technology), or It Is Isolated

   • If industrial control systems are used, they may be on physically separate networks, making it difficult for typical external threats to penetrate.

3. 90–95% of Attacks Are Web-Based

   • In reality, most attack vectors involve HTTP/HTTPS channels such as SQL injection, XSS, and file upload vulnerabilities.
   • Other protocols—SSH, VPN, RDP—are often encrypted or used infrequently, thus narrowing the overall attack surface.

Given that a majority of threats enter through web traffic, a WAF (Web Application Firewall) combined with host-based security (EDR/HIPS) already offers a significant level of practical defense.

2. Why You Likely Don’t Need NIPS/NDR

(1) Over 90% of Key Threats Are Web Attacks

• When looking at real-world attack vectors for SMEs, most exploits target web traffic (e.g., SQL injection, XSS, file upload vulnerabilities).

• A WAF is specialized in mitigating these web threats, while an EDR can intercept and block malicious activities once they reach internal systems.

  👍 Introduction to the PLURA-WAF service

(2) Predominantly Encrypted Traffic

• Today, most protocols (e.g., HTTPS) use TLS/SSL encryption, making deep packet inspection by NIPS/NDR difficult.
• Protocols like SSH, RDP, and VPN are restricted to authorized users and are generally handled by EDR on the host side, so a separate network-layer solution doesn’t necessarily add significant defensive value.

(3) Cost-Effectiveness and Operational Efficiency

• Beyond cost, adopting NIPS/NDR also requires the right staff and technical expertise to run it effectively.
• From an SME perspective, if WAF + EDR already covers most real-world web threats, deploying NIPS/NDR can be extreme overengineering.
• Overengineering can be counterproductive. Adding functionality beyond your genuine needs only inflates cost and complexity, potentially reducing overall security due to the increased burden on personnel and systems.

3. Exceptional Situations Where NIPS/NDR May Be Necessary

Still, some special cases may call for NIPS/NDR:

(1) Mandatory Regulations or Client Requirements

• In finance, military, or government sectors, network-based security solutions may be required.
• In such cases, NIPS/NDR might be unavoidable.

(2) Highly Complex, Large-Scale Networks Using Cleartext Protocols

• Infrastructures with thousands of servers and a mix of various protocols and services—some of which may be unencrypted—could benefit from network-level monitoring and blocking.
• That said, in environments dominated by encrypted traffic, NIPS/NDR provides far less value.

(3) Specific Industry Protocols Using Cleartext

• SCADA/ICS, certain ERP protocols, or legacy DB connections might still transmit data in cleartext.
• In such cases, NIPS/NDR can help monitor and block malicious activity at the network level. However,
• Many ICS environments can still be protected via ICS-specific gateways or host-based controls (agents, host firewalls). Implementing a full-blown NIPS/NDR solution could be overkill unless strictly necessary.

4. Conclusion: “If You Don’t Have Special Requirements, Don’t Bother with NIPS/NDR.”

1. WAF + EDR/HIPS Often Suffices

   • If most threats come via web traffic, WAF filters external attacks while EDR/HIPS detects and blocks malicious processes internally.
   • Access through SSH or RDP can be managed with whitelisting, MFA, or VPN-based access controls.

2. NIPS/NDR: A Solution for “Exceptional” Demands

   • Without regulatory obligations, large-scale complex networks, or specialized protocols,
   • NIPS/NDR is likely not cost-effective and could be over-specified, requiring excessive staff time.
   • Even large enterprises, if not bound by compliance or dealing with complex environments, may not need NIPS/NDR.

3. Focus on “Selectivity and Priority”

   • For SMEs, where web attacks account for 90% (or more) of threats, robustly managing WAF and host-level security generally yields better results in both cost and efficiency.
   • Absent any special requirements, it’s more rational to classify NIPS/NDR as a non-essential solution.

By analogy:

• “Wearing boots (WAF) is often enough to keep your feet dry in the rain.

• Adding height-boost insoles (NIPS/NDR) on top might just introduce extra cost and discomfort.

• Can you even walk properly that way?

• And if the odds of wading through deep puddles are very low,

  • Boots alone should suffice to keep your feet dry,
  • making those inserts (NIPS/NDR) an unnecessary case of overkill.

✍️ Key Takeaways

• For most standard corporate environments, WAF + host-based security is enough to counter common threats.

• If you don’t have special requirements (regulations, vast networks, OT/ICS, etc.), NIPS/NDR will likely be superfluous.

• Even large enterprises without mandated compliance obligations don’t necessarily gain much from NIPS/NDR.

• Considering cost and operational overhead, using NIPS/NDR only where truly needed is the smarter choice.

• Finally, remember that overengineering is detrimental.

  • Adding unnecessary layers increases maintenance points,
  • and potentially opens doors to system failures or security gaps.